The first conference held on 4 October 2011 in the proposed series was co-organized by the Central European University’s Center for European Enlargement Studies and the Friedrich Ebert Foundation Budapest. The venue was the Central European University’s Popper Room, and the conference had seven participants. They represented the targeted area of the Visegrad Countries, plus their enlarged European neighbourhood.

A good pool of expertise was achieved, with presenters from the Czech Republic: Miroslav Mareš (Brno, Masaryk University), Jan Charvát (Prague, Charles University); Slovakia: Grigorij Mesežnikov (Bratislava, IVO Institute for Public Affairs); Romania: Gabriel Andreescu (Bucharest, National School of Administrative and Political Sciences); Hungary: Gábor Egry (Budapest, The Institute for Political History), Áron Szele (Budapest, Center for European Enlargement Studies/Department of History at CEU), and from the United States, presenting a paper on Poland: Brian Porter-Szűcs (Michigan, University of Michigan). The conference was chaired by CENS director, and former Hungarian minister of foreign affairs, Péter Balázs. In his keynote speech, he underlined the importance and acuteness of the issue, and stated the salient manner of this phenomena from the point of view of international politics. He also called to attention the pan-European nature of this phenomena, drawing a line between the lack of historical reconciliation in new European Union member states, and the rise of the extreme right.  The conference reached its goal of interdisciplinarism, achieving a good mix of history, and political science. The goal of the conference was to do an exploration into the ideology of the extreme right, which is believed to be the key to understanding this phenomena. The little attention given to the radical right by scholars in the western world, and the lack of a pure regional, independent treatment of the subject was also a need the conference sought to supplant. The conference and the studies were also an effort in regional comparative studies, standing on the axiom that local similarities and contiguous existence are the source of cogent comparisons: it is much easier to understand, for example, the reflexes and the topics of the Hungarian extreme right, when it is treated together, for example, with its Romanian, or Slovak counterparts. The societies share a common space of existence, and use each other and their common history as a constant point of reference.

The presenters were grouped into two panels, according to theme and geographic area. The morning panel was made up of presenters from Slovakia, Romania, and Poland, and concentrated on how the state itself or institutions (such as the Church) foster radical right sentiment, and conversely, how these institutions are understood by the radical right. The second panel was dedicated to the understanding of society through the use of history by the radical right, and also to the continuities between radical right movements of the past and present. The two panels were chaired by Peter Balazs, and moderated by Áron Szele.

The first presentation belonged to Grigorij Mesežnikov, who proposed a paper entitled: “On the Concept of the State and Historic Legacy in Radical Nationalist Politics in Slovakia”.  There was a short introduction, in which the theoretical aspects of the radical right ideology were historicized, and a typology of radical right wing political movements were set up. Meseznikov then presented the concepts of state and society, as understood by the various Slovak radical formations, and showed how they use history and historical fetishism to narrate these concepts.

The second presentation was given by Gabriel Andreescu, who spoke about Romania. He provided an interesting case-study of how certain institutions foster the development and even themselves generate extremist attitudes within society. His presentation showed that even in a country which is (at the moment) devoid of any significant radical right wing movement, extremist attitudes can be buried deep within the fabric of society.

Brian Porter-Szűcs closed the first panel with his presentation on the historical status of ultranationalist sentiment and Catholicism. His paper very much complemented the one given by Gabriel Andreescu, both concentrating on the relationship between institutionalized religion, faith, and extremism. Porter-Szűcs gave a comprehensive analysis of the roots of the present-day phenomena, connecting them with similar trends in the interwar period.

The second panel was made up of four presenters from the Czech Republic and Hungary. It concentrating mainly on historical continuity, legacy and ideology, through which it analyzed the socio-political impact of the extreme right in the Hungarian and Czech cases. The first presenter was Miroslav Mares, who gave a good overview of the radical right in the 20th century, dispelling the myth of “lack of continuity” of the Czech radicals. His paper concentrated on the historical legacies of the current-day extreme right, connecting the two in a coherent manner.

Together with Jan Charvat, who spoke on the current trends of the Czech radical right, they gave a full presentation and analysis of the situation in their country. Mr. Charvat gave a most cogent presentation on the contemporary extreme right, movements and parties. He analyzed the main tenets of their ideology, showed the way they rely on historical legacy, and very clearly situated the radical right within the larger family on nationalists and conservatives, making asymmetric comparisons among them. He also attempted to give various social explanations for the current lack of success of the extreme right in the Czech lands.

Egry Gabor and Szele Aron also gave two complementary presentations on the radical right in Hungary. Their papers concentrated on the historical legacy of the extreme right, connecting the interwar period with present-day political movements. Polemic, their presentations showed the manner in which history is embedded in the radical right ideology in Hungary, drawing different conclusions. Egry argued that there is little difference between the radical right and conservative nationalism’s interpretations of history, the former springing the latter. In this way, Egry clearly positioned the contemporary Hungarian radical right within the traditions of nationalism. Szele Aron proposed that, even though sprouting from the same root, the radical right became a different phenomena altogether, through its original reading of history. Through history, it came to an interpretation of present events  and of future tasks, which is more than a variation on the tenets of nationalism. He highlighted the extreme conceptual world of the radical right and its need for urgent moves through radical action.

The project hopes to follow-up this event with another conference; the proposed theme of which would be “Europe and the Radical Right”. This conference would deal with the topic of the international community and the larger European setting and the phenomena of the radical right. It seeks to explore how the radical right movements understand the larger neighborhood they are part of, and what alternate constructions they propose for the European community as such.